Hello
I cannot comment very intelligently because I am not a composer, but pianistically I enjoyed these as beautiful mood pieces with some very lovely moments of emotion.

For the first one, you might try your editing program to eliminate the tiny noise (whoosh of wind sound) before your very first note. It would be nice to hear the first note ring out with only silence preceding it.

Odd - the fade in from silence is the exact effect I used on the source WAV file before converting it to MP3. Please can you try downloading the file again to see if the same issue arises? I'm looking at the source WAV and MP3 versions in a wave editor and can't seem to see or hear any noise before the first note - maybe I need to upload the mp3 again.

As a non-composer I can't really gauge where these pieces stand as compositions, whether they have some plan or structure one would normally expect in a composition, or they are more like extended (written-out ?) improvisations. Certainly they sound great, are packed with beautiful sounds, good ideas, and pianistic writing. Not least, they are superbly executed. Is it digital or acoustic ? The sound is demonstration-standard, I think.

I enjoyed the Cambric Clouds more than the Night Rain, even if it seems to go on a little bit. The Night Rain sounds a bit more like generalized new-Age, with less distinctive ideas than the othr piece.

Thank you - the pieces have been recorded using Pianoteq, using various customised presets.

I actually went with a fairly artificial-sounding Pianoteq 2.0 preset for Midnight Rain as it seemed to match the piece the best, whereas Cambric Clouds (and the other pieces) use customised Pianoteq 3.0 presets which have a warmer and fuller sound.

A beautiful piece again. My only criticism is that it's more than twice too long. To my mind, it should have ended at about 3:22. After this point, it starts to wander around quite aimlessly. Still producing nice sounds, but I believe that is not enough.

Well perhaps give it a few more listens before deeming it "aimless" - the ending of the piece has a reprise of both the starting theme and one of the themes in the middle section.

Yes I noticed that, and it was a point in its favour. Seems like too little, too late to me though.
Indeed it could be that repeated listening (I listened only twice) could reveal more structure and purpose to the proceedings in between. The problem is that if something does not grab you instantly, you are not likely to listen a couple of times.

Well, all I can say is that the piece has been very carefully constructed over a period of 3+ months

Also, I'm not sure about whether "instant catchiness" is great quality to have, many of my favourite compositions of all time took me several listens to get into (including Rach 2 & 3, Goldberg Variations and a few Debussy pieces)

Judging from the feedback and response to my own pieces, Midnight Rain seems to be the most accessible / "instantly catchy" by a considerable margin, but it's not a piece I play any more (and probably my least favourite out of the six pieces I've written).

"Inner Version (Us Prisoners)"
This is an interesting piece. You have made good use of your thematic material. You create wonderful harmonic colors.

Your initial thematic statement is well laid out. It is presented as a unit that, though it comes to a sense of resolution, it is not a strong resolution and therefore invites a continuation. Your placement of the climactic points are well thought out. The only problem to me with the climactic points is that they are somewhat at the same level and the final one at 3:36 does not quite reach the heights that the build up to it seem to indicate. At that point in this piece I want to feel breathless and suspended in air.

On the whole, I find it a convincing piece.

"Reflections #1 (Tomorrow)"

This piece has some very interesting and intriguing ideas. Harmonically, you use a romantic/impressionistic pallette that works well. But I do have to agree with Chris that it becomes too long for the material that you have and the way that it is put together. (So far, I've given it about 7 hearings).

The biggest problem is the location of the climactic points and their resolutions. In this piece, you have an incomplete climax at c 1:17, then at 1:51 - 2:09 another marginally stronger climax, and finally a fairly complete climax at 3:03. It comes down from there and by 3:22 you have a complete resolution of the tensions. This is very close to the plan that you use in "Inner Vision (Us Prisoners)", which is only a little longer than the 3:22 that we mention here. Consequently, in this piece there is really no where left to go after 3:22. To hold a piece of music together for 9 minutes, the proportions of the climactic points need to be spread out over that time.

From 3:22 to 8:58, it seems like a collection of disjoint ideas, none which seem to grow out of the initial material. These ideas are not particularly contrasting nor develpmental -- there are fragments that have some sense of develpment but it is not fulfilled. You do provide several interesting harmonic colors. Between 5:00 and 6:00 there is some sense of moving toward a climactic point, but it is never reached. This could be why I am not really getting that much sense of the reprise at the end.

I have enjoyed your other compositions, but for me this one does not quite measure up.

From 3:22 to 8:58, it seems like a collection of disjoint ideas, none which seem to grow out of the initial material. These ideas are not particularly contrasting nor develpmental -- there are fragments that have some sense of develpment but it is not fulfilled. You do provide several interesting harmonic colors.

This was exactly my point, only that I put it a bit more bluntly There is plenty to enjoy here, it just doesn't seem to add up. Was it Brahms who said that the most important thing about composing is leaving things out ?

"Inner Version (Us Prisoners)"... The only problem to me with the climactic points is that they are somewhat at the same level and the final one at 3:36 does not quite reach the heights that the build up to it seem to indicate.

Yeah the climaxes were deliberately set to around the same level in the performance to reflect the "prisoner" aspect of the piece name.

RSPIll wrote:

"Reflections #1 (Tomorrow)"...The biggest problem is the location of the climactic points and their resolutions. In this piece, you have an incomplete climax at c 1:17, then at 1:51 - 2:09 another marginally stronger climax, and finally a fairly complete climax at 3:03. It comes down from there and by 3:22 you have a complete resolution of the tensions. This is very close to the plan that you use in "Inner Vision (Us Prisoners)", which is only a little longer than the 3:22 that we mention here. Consequently, in this piece there is really no where left to go after 3:22. To hold a piece of music together for 9 minutes, the proportions of the climactic points need to be spread out over that time.

This is a fair comment, although the point after 3:22 is effectively a "part 2" / 2nd movement of the piece and intentionally stays a lot calmer throughout, gently building to a climax at the very end.

For my "Egyptian Concerto" (Parts 1 & 2) on the first album, it is the other way around: Part 1 is very calm throughout, whereas Part 2 is the most fiery piece I've done so far, with a huge contrast in dynamics. I decided to split it into two separate pieces as I felt there was a big enough distinction between the two sections to merit a divide. Also, the two parts can be performed independently, whereas if I split Reflection #1 at the 3:22 point I'm not sure it would work as two pieces.

I seem to have missed this one. A lovely piece indeed, full of wonderful harmonies. It reminded me as much of Debussy as of John Ireland. I especially like the last 70 seconds, the winding down after the climax. The closing chord could have come straight out of a Mompou piece.Great work.

I seem to have missed this one. A lovely piece indeed, full of wonderful harmonies. It reminded me as much of Debussy as of John Ireland. I especially like the last 70 seconds, the winding down after the climax. The closing chord could have come straight out of a Mompou piece.Great work.

Thank you, much appreciated

Also, I don't think I've heard anything by John Ireland, any of his works in particular that you can recommend?

Also, I don't think I've heard anything by John Ireland, any of his works in particular that you can recommend?

Haha, trust me to detect an influence that isn't there Let's just say there is something quintessentially English (whatever that is) about his tonal language and yours. A common ground shared by many English composers, especially those from the first half of the last century.

I know really only a couple of his piano works, notably his Prelude, Sarnia and the London Pieces. Absolutely great piano writing that should be far wider known. His much lauded Piano Concerto somehow failed to capture me.

I like the aesthetics and musicality of your playing. "Cambric Clouds" has a beautiful introduction, then you switched gears to a slower jazz style and I was a little disappointed because I was enjoying the ornate classical flourishes so much. I like your classical style more than your jazz style. You go back and fourth a lot.

I like the aesthetics and musicality of your playing. "Cambric Clouds" has a beautiful introduction, then you switched gears to a slower jazz style and I was a little disappointed because I was enjoying the ornate classical flourishes so much. I like your classical style more than your jazz style. You go back and fourth a lot.

Thanks - yeah Cambric Clouds is perhaps not as consistent in style as the other pieces (although it's one of my favourites and the one I return to the most often). This is due to it being written as a set of 9 different sections or "clouds" each in a different style, and ending on cloud nine. The sheet music is available as a free download here if you are interested:

Also, since mp3 forum attachments seem to get deleted after a while (3-4 months?), I edited all of the posts to include external links to my Bandcamp page.

Here are the final two pieces from my first album (Egyptian Concerto Parts 1 & 2), they were initially album-exclusive which is why I didn't post them on here to begin with, but they can now be listened to in full:

Hello Chris,I have composed and have taught composing. I listened to your three works and have a few things to say. Let's start with the encouragement You have a very well-devloped sense of musicality. You often have interesting harmonies (a splash of whole-tone here and there). I heard a section in Clouds that brought to mind the "EngulfING Cathedral" prelude of Debussy, because the large open-chord statements were descending. For its genre (which is a bit difficult to describe for reasons I'll state below) your music is beautiful and successful. Now for some (I hope constructive) critique. Your style is hardly novel. By and large, the works you gave us are what I would consider "sonic musings." There is no memorable melody that I will remember afterwards. Harmonically, you toy with other keys (as in the development section of a sonata where a "plurality" of keys may be featured) but never modulate to a distinct key "and live there." Consequently, the sense of departure is not clear, and therefore, the sense of return is not strong (when you finish in the same key that you started in). Rhythmically, there is nothing to catch my attention. Now, having said all this, I would have to add that "miniatures" like yours, especially if they are meant for "easy" listening, are supposed to be like that, BUT, your music is often far more interesting than "conversation music." There is the crux. Are you trying to let me talk over your music at a romantic dinner, or are you trying to interupt my conversation with your interesting musical ideas? I think (IMHO) that you need to decide if you wish as a composer to be in the background or if you want to say something worth people listening to. In a sense, to be a composer means to write works that other pianists (in this case) will wish to perform. The genre you are writing in does not lend itself to significant expression that will be uniquely identified by a single personality (yours); it will all pretty much sound very similar, not only to your other works, but unfortunately, to the works of others in the same genre. I suspect this may be disheartening to hear. You certainly have musical talent, but you haven't (IMO) begun to tap what you may be capable of. Keep in mind that this is a site for "Classical" (piano) music and that I am trained in that idiom. If you were my student, I would begin by having you do a lot of analysis (of extended works and Brahms Variations on a Theme of Haydn (the orchestral version) as a weekly vitamin pill on technical devices) and start you writing some variations on a given theme, for example on the opening of the Chopin Ballade No. 2. From there, you would be assigned to compose a work in ternary form (ABA, have you ever noted how beautiful are the B sections of Brahms piano works?). There you have it; take it for what it's worth. I wish you the best sincerely.

_________________Eddy M. del Rio, MD"A smattering will not do. They must know all the keys, major and minor, and they must literally 'know them backwards.'" - Josef Lhevinne

Thank you Eddy, some useful criticism. I'm still deciding myself what direction to go in future, and like you I can't really put a precise name on the genre, especially for the piano sketches, which weren't designed to be that similar in style to each other.

Also, I noticed you said you listened to my "three works" - have you only listened to the first three of my piano sketches? In total I've done ten pieces so far (5 piano sketches, 5 reflections, with 1 more reflection currently in development).

The general aim for my second Reflections album was to have a more consistent style, which is roughly Debussy-esque impressionism merged with some elements of jazz, and partly inspired by Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" amongst other pieces. Each of the five piano sketches on my first album (I think) are quite different in style, even Egyptian Concerto Part 1 vs Part 2 are separate pieces that can be performed independently of each other.

Thank you Eddy, some useful criticism. I'm still deciding myself what direction to go in future, and like you I can't really put a precise name on the genre, especially for the piano sketches, which weren't designed to be that similar in style to each other.

Also, I noticed you said you listened to my "three works" - have you only listened to the first three of my piano sketches? In total I've done ten pieces so far (5 piano sketches, 5 reflections, with 1 more reflection currently in development).

The general aim for my second Reflections album was to have a more consistent style, which is roughly Debussy-esque impressionism merged with some elements of jazz, and partly inspired by Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" amongst other pieces. Each of the five piano sketches on my first album (I think) are quite different in style, even Egyptian Concerto Part 1 vs Part 2 are separate pieces that can be performed independently of each other.

I began my reply after reading the comments on only the first page, having failied to note additional posts (including yours) following, so my comments were based upon hearing only the first three links you provided.

_________________Eddy M. del Rio, MD"A smattering will not do. They must know all the keys, major and minor, and they must literally 'know them backwards.'" - Josef Lhevinne

I began my reply after reading the comments on only the first page, having failied to note additional posts (including yours) following, so my comments were based upon hearing only the first three links you provided.

No problems - I've now updated the initial post with links to all of the pieces I've published so far.

I did not see this when you posted it. I find it amazing that you are still receiving posts after all these months! That, in itself, is an accomplishment. I listened to some of your earlier music, then listened to your later music and changed my mind on some of the things I was going to say. Generally, I think I like what you are doing. I like your rhythm and rubato. You are obviously using piano software (which sounds fantastic, by the way - Is it the Garritan Steinway? I ask because it is what I use.) which means you are recording in MIDI, but you are recording straight out and not getting sucked in to the strict tempo trap that so many do. I like your harmony and willingness to experiment. Your music has a "look what I found" character to it which I find attractive.

Though I found some structural devices holding together your earlier music, along with some clever - if sporadic - use of motivic material, this latest Reflections album seems even more spontaneous. The music seems to be held together by an underlying tonality, and the motion seems to be for you to make chromatic (or non-diatonic) excursions away from the tonality and then make your way back. Sometimes you "stay away" for quite a while, but I agree with Musical-md in that you never seem to arrive anywhere new. This does not bother me so much, though the entire album seems to be in the same or closely related tonality. Another thing that begins to wear on me is how each of your phrases ends in piano reverberation. It tends to stop the motion of what you just did. Some shorter pauses between phrases, or even elision of the beginning of your new phrase to the end of your old phrase would help to move your music along a little bit and allow you to group your music into longer sections.

The characteristics I have mentioned cause me to ask if this music was originally improvised. This is not a criticism, but just an inquiry. I, myself, use improvisation as the origin of my written music (see my post under Composition), as well as improvising for its own sake. I ask because several of the devices you are using are those which might be used by a good improviser. Also, some of the chromatic notes seem to get left hanging without resolution, which happens. If not, you have done a good job of simulating or assimilating an improvised style.

I also would like to pass along a structural technique I picked up from Debussy, since you name him as an influence. At the time I discovered this, my music was quite modal, and I found myself working with pentatonics and hexatonics rather than the regular tonal major/minor system. So I arranged the notes (not keys) in a line in fifths - flats in one direction and sharps in the other - like this.

. . . A# D# G# C# F# B E A D G C F Bb Eb Ab Db Gb . . .

Major scales are grouped together - so are pentatonics and hexatonics - and they are arranged in a coherent tonal system. But I liked it because it did not imply a tonal CENTER but just a tonal COLOR. I played around with moving from one grouping to another, adding notes to the left then right, jumping, etc. Then I took a look at some of the modal music of Debussy and graphed it using the above arrangement of notes as a Y-axis against time as the X-axis. What he seemed to do was to plan his modal pieces so that they moved first in one direction then back and to the other direction and back, creating sort of a sine wave. This was a revelation because tonal function doesn't work very well in a modal setting. Most romantic composers (Brahms and Dvorak for example) just use tonal harmony to go with their modal melodies. But Debussy moved the COLOR of his music back and forth, without using functional harmony. I thought I would pass this along, because you seem much more 'color" oriented than "function" oriented, and your music does seem to get stuck sometimes in one area. Of course, all your interesting chromatic excursions would still be great, but this way you could have your background color move to different tonal areas. It also might help you to expand your concept of a "tonal area" as it did for me.

I don't see any problem with what you are going to do with this. Just keep writing and publicizing and something might happen. Hitting the jackpot is not always the most fortunate thing anyway, as people will no longer want you to grow and change. Composition can be a lifelong pursuit so growth and change are a must, for your sanity if nothing else. I did a show with James Taylor once who said that when he heard Carole King sing "You've got a friend", he complemented her on the song. She said to him, "you like it, why don't you take it?" He then said that if he had known then that he would be singing the song every day for the next forty years, he might not have taken her up on it!

You are obviously using piano software (which sounds fantastic, by the way - Is it the Garritan Steinway?

I've been using Pianoteq for the whole range of pieces so far, v3 or later for most of the pieces but v2.5 for my first piece Midnight Rain, which sounds a little brittle but oddly seems to sound better than on the richer sound of Pianoteq v3 and later.

glenn wrote:

Your music has a "look what I found" character to it which I find attractive.

Well you certainly stumbled on something there, you are correct in more ways than one

glenn wrote:

The characteristics I have mentioned cause me to ask if this music was originally improvised. This is not a criticism, but just an inquiry. I, myself, use improvisation as the origin of my written music (see my post under Composition), as well as improvising for its own sake. I ask because several of the devices you are using are those which might be used by a good improviser. Also, some of the chromatic notes seem to get left hanging without resolution, which happens. If not, you have done a good job of simulating or assimilating an improvised style.

I have a limited number of free invites to the full details on my compositional technique still available (see http://www.innerversion.com/forum.php for details). Please email me at info@innerversion.com if you would like one of the last free invites - in about a week's time they will cost £99 for a lifetime membership.

Some interesting analysis of Debussy as well, thank you, I've not looked extensively the modal aspect of his music before, although his preludes such as "La fille aux cheveux de lin" and "La cathédrale engloutie" have probably had the most influence on me out of all of his work and those pieces have a lot of pentatonic and modal harmony (so perhaps those sort of structures rubbed off on my work indirectly).

I've been using Pianoteq for the whole range of pieces so far, v3 or later for most of the pieces but v2.5 for my first piece Midnight Rain, which sounds a little brittle but oddly seems to sound better than on the richer sound of Pianoteq v3 and later.

Thanks, I will keep that in mind. Sounds terrific on my speakers, though admittedly not high tech.

InnerVersion wrote:

glenn wrote:Your music has a "look what I found" character to it which I find attractive.

Well you certainly stumbled on something there, you are correct in more ways than one

A teacher of mine once said, "Nobody discovers anything in music. Everything is always there, it is just a question of using it or not." But some composers seem to be particularly attracted to novelty. I have always felt that Moussorgsky, in particular, wrote this way, and really enjoyed breaking rules. (Debussy loved to break rules too, but he was very organized.) Berlioz has this feeling often, but he was just VERY creative. I feel that he gets distracted/inspired in the middle of phrases (drug takes effect), but he usually works everything out.

InnerVersion wrote:

I have a limited number of free invites to the full details on my compositional technique still available (see http://www.innerversion.com/forum.php for details). Please email me at info@innerversion.com if you would like one of the last free invites - in about a week's time they will cost £99 for a lifetime membership.

You are SELLING the details of your compositional technique? People are paying £99 to be in a compositional forum? I am astounded. (P.T. Barnum was right!) Maybe I am missing out on something here. Actually, what you are doing in your pieces is not a mystery, but I was just wondering whether you were an improviser, as I have become. The "concentrational imperative" of improvisation seems to betray one's true "inner vision". I have used a number of compositional techniques over the years. I have devised them as a means to come up with my envisioned music, whatever that may be. However, it really is a case of "whatever turns you on", because in the long run it doesn't mean anything. The music is everything. Best of luck in your endeavors.

You are SELLING the details of your compositional technique? People are paying £99 to be in a compositional forum? I am astounded. (P.T. Barnum was right!) Maybe I am missing out on something here. Actually, what you are doing in your pieces is not a mystery, but I was just wondering whether you were an improviser, as I have become. The "concentrational imperative" of improvisation seems to betray one's true "inner vision". I have used a number of compositional techniques over the years. I have devised them as a means to come up with my envisioned music, whatever that may be.

All I can say is that this is genuinely groundbreaking, and no, it has nothing to do with improvisation really (that's only a very small part of it), the core technique is much more mathematical than that. Please don't comment until you actually read about the technique (email me for a free forum invite).

I'm charging for it because not many people are actually buying my albums, and I'd love to make some sort of income from music so that I can carry on doing it full-time. I could easily justify charging £300-£400 or more for the technique, as it has been used to generate every Inner Version piece so far (and all pieces in future), and can easily be adapted to any other musical style (or instrument).

Also, I'll be stunned if you have genuinely worked out exactly what I'm doing, as no one else has figured it out yet by themselves, even though there are loads of clues of varying subtlety, including some cheeky ones earlier in this forum thread (!).

You are SELLING the details of your compositional technique? People are paying £99 to be in a compositional forum? I am astounded. (P.T. Barnum was right!) Maybe I am missing out on something here. Actually, what you are doing in your pieces is not a mystery, but I was just wondering whether you were an improviser, as I have become. The "concentrational imperative" of improvisation seems to betray one's true "inner vision". I have used a number of compositional techniques over the years. I have devised them as a means to come up with my envisioned music, whatever that may be.

All I can say is that this is genuinely groundbreaking, and no, it has nothing to do with improvisation really (that's only a very small part of it), the core technique is much more mathematical than that. ...Also, I'll be stunned if you have genuinely worked out exactly what I'm doing, as no one else has figured it out yet by themselves, even though there are loads of clues of varying subtlety, including some cheeky ones earlier in this forum thread (!).

Well this is sounding more and more like an algorhythmic process or function-based procedure. Perhaps what we need is code-breaking, rather than musical analysis.

_________________Eddy M. del Rio, MD"A smattering will not do. They must know all the keys, major and minor, and they must literally 'know them backwards.'" - Josef Lhevinne

All I can say is that this is genuinely groundbreaking, and no, it has nothing to do with improvisation really (that's only a very small part of it), the core technique is much more mathematical than that. Please don't comment until you actually read about the technique (email me for a free forum invite).

The last 50-60 years, "process" music has become quite common. First with total serialism, and then, with minimalism, process music went mainstream. Probably a majority of the composers I meet use some sort of process to generate their music. Some are mathematical, some are not so much. They all use some sort of formula. The best use their process to generate material or a "first draft" and then use their intuition and technique to shape the result into a musical work. I have used processes for most of my career. In a sense, using improvisation as a first draft is also a process, albeit a rather organic one. At some point, all composition is a process of some sort: Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, whatever. The real art comes in molding the music. Be mindful of some of the reservations I expressed concerning timing and momentum. If these are "process" errors, they need to be refined.

InnerVersion wrote:

I'm charging for it because not many people are actually buying my albums, and I'd love to make some sort of income from music so that I can carry on doing it full-time. I could easily justify charging £300-£400 or more for the technique, as it has been used to generate every Inner Version piece so far (and all pieces in future), and can easily be adapted to any other musical style (or instrument).

How to make a living is the cross all composers bare. Most make their living by playing, teaching, copying, or even administrating. Very few make a living composing. What you are doing online is really no different than teaching private lessons or classes. You might make more if you actually give advise online, sort of a virtual master class. You have a right to charge what the market will bare. Good luck.

InnerVersion wrote:

Also, I'll be stunned if you have genuinely worked out exactly what I'm doing, as no one else has figured it out yet by themselves, even though there are loads of clues of varying subtlety, including some cheeky ones earlier in this forum thread (!).

Again, what you are doing "musically" is not a mystery. The generation process is not particularly important, except if it LIMITS you musically. What I have found with processes is that they tend to have boundaries within which they normally operate. After a while, those boundaries become tedious to even non-musicians. If you can use your process to generate creative OPPORTUNITY, you will be alright. But be careful, as you seem to be falling into a bit of a rut. It is best not to take your processes too seriously. Keep at it, you have obvious talent and enthusiasm.

The last 50-60 years, "process" music has become quite common. First with total serialism, and then, with minimalism, process music went mainstream. Probably a majority of the composers I meet use some sort of process to generate their music. Some are mathematical, some are not so much. They all use some sort of formula. The best use their process to generate material or a "first draft" and then use their intuition and technique to shape the result into a musical work. I have used processes for most of my career. In a sense, using improvisation as a first draft is also a process, albeit a rather organic one. At some point, all composition is a process of some sort: Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, whatever. The real art comes in molding the music. Be mindful of some of the reservations I expressed concerning timing and momentum. If these are "process" errors, they need to be refined.

Yes this is true, *however* the process I've invented is extremely powerful. To my knowledge, my technique has never been used before 2009 - I'm still stunned that it hasn't, but I've been searching for 2 years and yet to find any evidence.

glenn wrote:

How to make a living is the cross all composers bare. Most make their living by playing, teaching, copying, or even administrating. Very few make a living composing. What you are doing online is really no different than teaching private lessons or classes. You might make more if you actually give advise online, sort of a virtual master class. You have a right to charge what the market will bare. Good luck.

Well yeah I've written a guide to my technique in the forum, but you still seem to be missing the point. Don't assume that every composition method has already been discovered, and don't assume that some composition methods aren't very powerful indeed.

Sorry if I'm being slightly abrupt, it's just that I stumbled on this technique purely by chance, spent the last 2 years developing it, spent the last week or two working flat out on a clear and easy to read guide, and you dismiss it as though it's nearly worthless even though you have no idea what the technique is (!).

I've offered you a completely free forum invite which won't be available in about a week's time, I'm puzzled why you are resistant to take up the offer?

glenn wrote:

The generation process is not particularly important, except if it LIMITS you musically.

The process doesn't provide any limitations in practice, and you'll change your mind completely about it not being important once you read about the technique.

glenn wrote:

What I have found with processes is that they tend to have boundaries within which they normally operate. After a while, those boundaries become tedious to even non-musicians. If you can use your process to generate creative OPPORTUNITY, you will be alright. But be careful, as you seem to be falling into a bit of a rut. It is best not to take your processes too seriously. Keep at it, you have obvious talent and enthusiasm.

I'm not saying any more about the technique now Glenn, it's your loss if you don't take up a very generous free invite.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum